Perhaps the greatest liability Australians face in the ensuing debate that rages between advocates and opponents of the latest “climate change” theory is whether or not this country can – or should – bear the burden of change that is demanded of our industry by radical environmentalists.
Gallons of ink have been spilled in the pages of local tabloids, broadsheets and magazines of political review concerning the merits of each argument, though mostly the debate has favoured the Green agenda and presented it in the best light possible. Likewise, and to compliment the skewed reportage, metric tons of hot air has been expelled by talking heads on TV and radio about the urgency and need for governments to act. Indeed, what we have witnessed over the past two decades can hardly be described as a “debate” at all; rather, it is a propaganda war where one side is routinely denied the right to respond in the public square. This has had the expected effect of manipulating public opinion such that one must question if an honest debate now is even possible in the current climate.
None of this, of course, should dissuade any participant on the rational side of the barricade from retreat: the stakes are far too high for the future of this country and its prosperity.
Ordinarily when a crisis is identified, the rational mind is driven to identify the root cause so that the most damaging
impact can be quickly and efficiently neutralised. Attention will then turn to who carries the onus of responsibility for the cause that lead to the damage. If there are several contributing factors, the question will then naturally arise about which is the most impactful. All of this is geared to formulating a strategy that would most adequately address the problem with the greatest efficiency and least disruption to the social and economic environment. None of this has happened in the debate over mining and energy policy in Australia, and this is where some of the greatest mischief has occurred in the debate about Australia’s role in “climate change”.
One of the most common motifs we encounter in the rhetorical tug of war is the constant reminder about the alleged “scientific consensus” on the topic of so-called manmade climate change – as if science was ever determined by democratic vote, and as if scientists by their very nature shouldn’t be motivated to question and test accepted dogmas.
What is, however, determined by democratic vote are the governments who have the public trust in running the country in a manner consistent with its national interest and for the benefit of its citizens.
Thus we arrive at the incessant calls for Australia to reduce its carbon footprint so as to mitigate the global output
of green-house gasses, notably carbon dioxide. Others have already outlined what such a radical plan would do to our country’s energy security, if it were imposed through law and regulation in a way that would satisfy the most enthusiastic of the environmentalist agitators. The unreliability of renewable sources of energy production such as wind and solar have likewise been described by critics of the Green’s misguided utopian visions. But what hasn’t been declared loudly enough, and is worth repeating here once more, is that even if we were to concede to the demands, Australia’s compliance to the environmentalist agenda would do little to nothing to mitigate the problems identified by the global warming community.
Consider the following:
According to the Global Carbon Atlas, our country is numbered 16th in the global index of carbon pollution per
metric ton of CO2 for the year of 2017. More recent statistics concerning our carbon emissions are difficult to locate, however according to the Washington DC based World Resource Institute, in 2014 we contributed no more than 1.28% of all greenhouse gas emissions – which include not only carbon dioxide, but also methane, nitrus oxide, petroflurocarbon and sulphur hetrafluride. Indeed, from 2000 through to 2013, Australia’s per capita emissions of carbon dioxide has actually been falling. More recent information has been provided by “Numbeo”, which is the world’s largest database of user contributed data about cities and countries worldwide, and which analyses global living conditions that also include its own pollution index. According to information released for 2018, Australia is listed 93 out of 102 countries in that index of global pollutants (the higher the ranking, the greater the pollution emission).
Clearly, Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon dioxide in particular, is negligible
compared to the other great polluters such as China, the United States, India, and other highly industrialised as well
as developing economies. It does not take a great deal of foresight to see that if we were to comply with the radical
plans of the environmental lobby, the alleged benefits would be practically nil, yet the costs could likely be catastrophic.
It is now common knowledge that the environmental lobby was effectively hijacked at the end of the Cold War
by ideological elements who were looking for an alternative outlet through which to continue prosecuting their anticapitalist agenda. The co-founder of Greenpeace himself, Patrick Moore, said that he left the movement due to this politicisation. The UK’s Independent quoted him in a report published on 28 February 2014 where he states that: “After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective.” The convergence of otherwise legitimate organisations with a subversive ideological program has seen many lose their credibility in the public eye; Greenpeace is just one such example, but it is noteworthy because it illustrates how a cause can be corrupted by radical activists who manipulate sincere public concerns for their own ulterior political objectives. Their solutions are fraudulent because their ultimate objective is not to protect the environment but to control global industry through a regulatory system with themselves as autocratic administrators.
No wonder that the “debate” has been so difficult to engage in by those who are not unbridled enthusiasts of the global warning agenda. In this context, Australia has every reason to be suspicious of any demands placed on our industry to comply with the demands of activists who are forced to rely on underhanded tactics, misinformation, fear-mongering and propaganda campaigns to prosecute their cause.